Game: Descent: Journeys in the Dark

Thread: Re: Adding these to the Shop Deck. What do you think?

Antistone — 2008-05-09T08:46:44+00:00

Several people here seem to be confused about the normal shop weapons. Allow me to provide a little information:

First, there is definitely a weapon with 1 damage/surge in the standard shop:
Axe: Red+Green, 1 surge: +1 damage, 2 hands, 100 gold

Well of Darkness adds some more weapons to the shop. Some of the more relevant ones are:
Walking Stick: Reach, Red+Yellow, 1 surge: +1 damage, 2 hands, 75 gold
Sunburst: White+Green, 3 surges: +1 damage, 3 surges: Blast 1, 2 hands, 175 gold

Notice that the Walking Stick, in addition to having Reach, has the same surge-spending rules as the Axe, and a lower cost, and is weaker only because it trades a green die for a yellow (losing about 2 damage on average). Apparently, the designers consider 1 surge/damage to be appropriate for two-handed melee shop weapons, though this does mean that the Bone Blade (copper 1h melee) is basically a 1-handed version of the Axe from the shop.

Also notice that they added a weapon which gets AoE (Blast 1) for 3 surges.

Now, for your weapons. You might find [url=http://www.boardgamegeek.com/file/info/31783]this spreadsheet[/url] a useful reference for testing out weapon designs; it'll do a lot of nice calculations for you. You can represent the "spend 1 surge to hit" drawback as negative one free surges (attacks with fewer than zero surges are considered by the spreadsheet to miss, in order to handle the Fear ability).

Waraxe:
The current version of the Waraxe is like the sword, except that it trades a surge for +1 damage. Since they both spend surges only for damage, and charge 2 surges per damage, that's strictly a good tradeoff, except when it causes you to miss outright. With 3 power dice, and assuming your target doesn't have Fear, you're effectively gaining 1 surge at the cost of increasing your miss chance from 16% to 26% (assuming 3 power dice).

That means a slightly greater chance of a one-hit kill against monsters with health+armor of 8 or higher (which starts with champion beastman and normal razorwings in a 4-hero game) but reduced chance against against 6 or lower, and reduced damage overall. I'd say that makes the sword a bit better overall, especially in small games, but it's an interesting tradeoff.

However, that's assuming the sword or waraxe is your only weapon. If you add a dagger as an off-hand weapon, the waraxe can no longer miss due to surges (unless the target has Fear), which means it's now one free surge ahead of the sword on all attacks, with no drawback. One could argue that this might still be OK, because dual-wielding is considered fairly weak in general, but you've eliminated any realistic chance of anyone starting with sword + dagger, which I find concerning.

Spear:
Your current version is clearly inferior to the walking stick, except in price and allowing use of a shield, and also very similar to it. I would probably either make it exactly the same as the stick (using it as a stand-in unless/until you get the expansion), or take it in another direction.

Your previous version (with piercing) is an odd case. It most closely resembles the dagger, which isn't typically used as a primary weapon. If we assume that the piercing will always be as good as +damage, then you can look at it as a sword with about 1 less average damage, no off-hand bonuses, and a slight price reduction. I think I'd have difficulty justifying it's use.

Greatsword:
Your current version is an axe with a damage carry-over ability for 100 gold extra. Note that I'm assuming that the second target gets to subtract its armor from your remaining damage before it's wounded.

Overkilling monsters in Descent is actually quite common in Descent, especially in games with a smaller number of heroes--however, doing enough damage to kill two monsters is not (at least with shop weapons), so the double-kill odds are pretty low except against really weak monsters (e.g. skeletons), and softening up a secondary target may not be overly powerful (you could try to kill 3 enemies with 2 attacks, but the OL can probably stop you with clever monster placement). However, this is going to rip things apart in a 2-hero game, where a hero with a waraxe and 3 power dice has a 55% chance of killing two beastmen in one blow (and that other 45% chance includes the 16% chance of rolling an X).

Your first design (with Sweep) is rather interesting. The AoE of Sweep and Blast 1 are clearly similar, which makes that design closely reminiscent of the Sunburst rune from the expansion. Surges are actually harder to roll on a red die than a white one, so with 3 power dice, you only get 3 surges on about 20% of attacks (that's attacks, not hits; again, I'm taking misses into account). Add in the fact that you won't always have a secondary target to hit, even if you activate it, and that you lose potential damage, and it seems pretty much in line. I'd increase the surge cost for bonus damage to 2 or 3, to be more consistent with Sunburst, but other than that it seems very similar in effectiveness.

Including the fact that, like Sunburst, it becomes completely broken if you pick up something that synergizes with it.

If you happen to draw the Weapon Mastery skill, you get 2 free surges on melee attacks, and suddenly you can Sweep on 74% of attacks, which is, unfortunately, completely out of line with the power of other shop weapons (Sunburst has the same problem with the Prodigy skill, or Landrec the Wise). It also has a combo problem with Lord Hawthorne (a WoD hero), who automatically gets the Reach ability, expanding the coverage of Sweep from 8 squares to 24 squares.

Now, you could say that the design problem here is not with Sunburst and the Greatsword, but with Weapon Master, Prodigy, Landrec, and Hawthorne, and I'd have a very difficult time arguing with you. Free surges do very little with weak weapons, where you'd expect the largest proportional gain from a flat boost, and do ridiculous things on gold weapons, which are already nigh-unstoppable. And Reach + Sweep is so much better than either of those skills individually, it's really just not acceptable to piece that combo together from multiple sources.

It's basically a conflict of design decisions: the game should not contain both incremental surge bonuses and threshold abilities that give you a massive power boost if you get an unlikely number of surges. The game should not include both a hero with Reach and a weapon with Sweep (but not Reach). You can go either way on those choices, but including both is just not a good idea.

You also need to consider that AoE effects are inherently very powerful in Descent, not just because they multiply damage (instead of adding to it), but because extra damage is so frequently wasted. If you're already killing your target in one hit at least half the time, then there is no amount of bonus damage that is balanced against the ability to hit two targets at once. I believe that easy-to-kill monsters are a fundamental design flaw in Descent that have thrown a bunch of other game mechanics out of balance; however, if you don't want to rebalance the entire game, you'll have to work around the present design constraints.

You could swing the greatsword balance the other way--say, allow sweep for 1-2 surges, but swap the green die for a yellow and require 2-3 surges for +1 damage, and then you can frequently hit multiple targets, but have a hard time killing anything in one hit. Unfortunately, there's also a skill called Mighty that adds a flat +2 damage, which is enough to give a good chance of an instant-kill on many enemies even if you're making unarmed attacks (1 red and surges worthless).

If you're determined to make a multi-hit melee shop weapon work, I'd maybe split the difference and head in this direction:

2 surges: +1 damage
3 surges: Sweep
125 gold
One Hand
Red Die Only

Because it's one-handed, you can grab a dagger as an off-hand weapon for a free surge and sweep about 40% of the time (with 3 power dice), while maintaining a decent chance of one-shotting weak enemies if you don't sweep. If you've got Weapon Mastery, you can Sweep reliably even without the dagger, but with less damage than a dagger, and probably want a sword in your off-hand for bonus damage; if you've got Mighty, this still probably makes you the best killer in the party, but multiple simultaneous decapitations are at least tolerably rare. If you happen to have both Mighty and Weapon Mastery, of course, you're still broken. And you'd probably want to modify Lord Hawthorne's ability not to work with it, if you ever play with WoD.

Thread: Re: One of the Classic Blunders

herufeanor — 2008-05-09T08:00:36+00:00

mattprice wrote:
Wow, who clarified this?

I would assume that would be Kevin Wilson, as the only person who ever seems to offer official clarifications on Descent rules.

mattprice wrote:
The trap card seems very clear: ignores armor.

We've never played that any armor that has the "roll the die to avoid wounds" thingie works against traps. It's armor, and it's ignored.

So, if "ignores armor" means it ignores armor items, then the Elven Cloak doesn't work, but a player's intrinsic armor points do still count, because those don't come from an armor item. With a couple die upgrades, Nanok could completely ignore all trap damage, since none of his armor points come from armor items.

If, however, it means armor points, then all Nanok's intrinsic armor points won't do jack, BUT the elven cloak will still function.

If it means BOTH, well, then the person who wrote those rules needs some serious lessons in board game rule composition.

Thread: Re: New expansion previewed at Gama - Winter/ Ice themed

johnweldy — 2008-05-09T07:01:29+00:00

Oh, I am SO sold. Totally thinking of the ice/fire Hellhound dungeon level in RtL, but on a much larger scale.

Thread: Re: DDM swap out for FFG minis

Robbage — 2008-05-09T06:11:46+00:00

Well yes, Jim; I could live with that too. In fact, that might be the ultimate solution . . . all things being equal. But I'M not going to paint them; it's just not in me.

robbage

Thread: Re: DDM swap out for FFG minis

oneilljgf — 2008-05-09T06:04:57+00:00

Rob,

I actually quite like the minis, although I have painted them all.

Thread: Re: One of the Classic Blunders

Antistone — 2008-05-09T04:16:03+00:00

So you played that the trap cards ignore armor(2), or that they ignore both armor(1) and armor(2)?

It's worth observing that in order for the person writing the trap card to mean both definitions, but just write "armor," it would probably be necessary for the writer to get the two concepts confused, rather than merely accidentally assigning them the same name.

And if they only meant one of the two, I have a hard time believing that they were thinking of armor(2). That would cause spiked pits to inflict zero damage on heroes with high base armor(1).

Thread: DDM swap out for FFG minis

Robbage — 2008-05-09T04:02:52+00:00

Is it just me or are some of these FFG minis a little rank? Not to mention unpainted. I've seen the threads on WoW substitution but what about DDM figs. They're good looking, varied and cheap enough that a conversion shouldn't break the bank. Hell Hounds (two square figs) might be problematic, but overall the visual upgrade would be a breat of fresh air.

Anyone here compiled a conversion list as yet?

Thanks,
robbage

Thread: Re: Journeys in the Dark: Quest Difficulty Rating

mattprice — 2008-05-09T03:53:59+00:00

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for your analysis.

What are tier 3 and tier 4 monsters? Is there something in the rulebook that clarifies this?

Thanks

Thread: Re: Calling for advice from experienced Descent Players, for first time play

mattprice — 2008-05-09T03:46:37+00:00

The first quest *should* be a walkover, but as the OL, I've beaten noobie heroes on the first quest.

For a first game, I don't think there's anything wrong with having the OL serve as a (mean) guide, or play in the D&D "dungeon master" mentality. I'm an old DM, and even though I would sometimes win as the OL, I very much enjoyed crafting a story for my heroes, especially if they were beginners.

Purposefully allowing new heroes to win does go against the spirit of the game, but it can still be a lot of fun. As the OL, I do find myself frequently pulling for the heroes, and not playing evil card combinations or horrible spawns, because I'm enjoying watching them enjoy the game. But be careful... Being nice to the heroes can quickly turn into a walk over, allowing them to win with gobs of conquest. So if you're the OL and you've got this mindset, it's a careful balance to keep the game fun without it becoming a crushing victory one way or another.

How did your game go? Did the players enjoy it? As the game owner, did the OL hit you with a bunch of traps? :)

Thread: Re: One of the Classic Blunders

mattprice — 2008-05-09T03:35:14+00:00

Wow, who clarified this?

The trap card seems very clear: ignores armor.

We've never played that any armor that has the "roll the die to avoid wounds" thingie works against traps. It's armor, and it's ignored.

Can you post a link?

Thanks

Thread: Descent JitD quest 8 question, SPOILER

mattprice — 2008-05-09T03:26:18+00:00

I'd like to pose a question to those folks who've played throught quest 8 in the base game, "The Trapped Ruins"

You get the relic "the touch of death" at the end of the game, when the demon appears.

The touch of death allows you to instantly kill something with three surges... Doesn't this make the big battle with the demon a little anticlimactic? I can't find any clarifications here, so I'm wondering what folks have seen with this quest's endgame. We didn't get there, as the heroes perished prior to getting the other half of the relic.

Thoughts?

Thread: Re: New expansion previewed at Gama - Winter/ Ice themed

Lagduf — 2008-05-09T08:30:47+00:00

Sweet.

Can I preorder yet?

Thread: Re: New expansion previewed at Gama - Winter/ Ice themed

roberious — 2008-05-09T04:56:45+00:00

Here is the scan from the brochure.

[IMG]http://www.members.shaw.ca/genoliuos/tombofice-1.jpg[/IMG]

Thread: Re: New expansion previewed at Gama - Winter/ Ice themed

mhutton — 2008-05-09T04:32:49+00:00

scans please :D

Thread: Re: Green Skills Analysis

Antistone — 2008-05-09T01:16:58+00:00

Upon reflection, I think you may be underestimating Born to the Bow. The fact that you can likely get an extra point or two of damage or range is nice, but the majority of monsters in Descent end up dying from a single attack, whether it has a damage-boosting effect or not (especially when near-kills tend to turn into kills with fatigue).

The more important effect is probably that you can reroll misses, which reduces your inherent chances of wasting an attack from 1/6 to 1/36. Even if X's were the only thing you ever re-rolled, that would increase the efficiency of your attacks by 1/7 (almost 17%) with no resource expenditure. That's probably less helpful than, say, Leadership, but still nothing to scoff at. Add in the fact that it also increases your average damage and (if you need it) range--most especially when you make a poor roll and most need it--and I'd say you've definitely got a keeper.

Thread: Re: Piles and piles of threat?

Antistone — 2008-05-09T12:39:34+00:00

The base threat per turn is equal to the number of heroes, not the number of players (ref: p.9 of rulebook). Other than that, it sounds like you got everything right.

Quest #2 is designed to teach the heroes certain very specific tactics, and can end up being either extremely easy or extremely hard depending on how quickly the heroes figure them out. With experienced heroes, it's a cakewalk.

Thread: Re: Issue with Figures out of LOS not blocking LOS

Antistone — 2008-05-09T12:27:08+00:00

Interesting problem. Notice monster B from that [url=http://files.boardgamegeek.com/geekfile_view.php?fileid=15988]Doom example[/url]. According to the text on that page, monsters in Doom do not block LOS to themselves, and therefore the rear half of monster B is in LOS, and all squares of the nearby 2x2 monster are also targetable.

However, under Descent rules, monsters do block LOS to themselves; the example on page 10 of the rulebook specifically notes that Sir Valadir has LOS to only the front two spaces of the ogre, not the rear two spaces (which are blocked by the front spaces). Therefore, in a set-up like the one pictured from Doom, the original Descent rules don't allow you to trace LOS to monster B (it's rear half is obscured by its front half). Under the new rules, where monsters not in LOS don't obstruct LOS, we get a paradox: if we declare the monster is out of LOS, it doesn't block LOS, and thus LOS to its rear half is unobstructed; if we declare the monster is in LOS, then it can block LOS, and its front half obscures its rear half.

We could change the rules to work like Doom, but then Blast attacks can center on the rear spaces of large monsters, which will render them even more powerful than they already are. Not to mention that we get bizarre cases like this:
[c] GGB
GG.
H..[/c]
Where hero H can fire through both of the bottom two squares of giant G in order to hit its upper-right corner, but cannot target beastman B, which is obscured by a single one of those squares. In fact, the upper-right corner of the giant is the only panel the hero can target where a Blast 1 attack would hit both monsters but not himself.

Here's another evil example for you: the fact that a hero has the "Precision" skill (ignore one obstacle or figure when tracing LOS for attacks) could actually cause that hero to lose LOS to a figure. For example:
[c] H.......
...XBDDS
...X.DD.
.....DD.[/c]
A bestman (B), a dragon (D), and a skeleton (S) are lined up behind some rubble (X) while a hero attempts to line up an attack. Neither the bestman nor any square of the dragon can be targeted without tracing LOS through the rubble, so they do not block LOS to the skeleton, which is not shielded by the rubble. Therefore, the hero can attack the skeleton, and not the other monsters.

However, if the hero has Precision, she can ignore one figure or obstacle for purposes of tracing LOS for an attack. This allows her to spot the beastman (through the top square of rubble) and the dragon's tail (through the bottom square of rubble--if I've miscalculated the line and it passes through both X squares, just remove the bottom square to make the example work). Therefore, both the beastman and the dragon are within LOS.

Tracing LOS to the skeleton doesn't require going through the rubble, but it requires going through both the beastman and the dragon, which, being within LOS, are now able to block LOS. Precision allows her to ignore one of them, but not both. Therefore, by gaining the Precision skill, our hero has lost LOS to the skeleton.

One other technicality that may be worth considering: in order to make the "figures outside of LOS don't block LOS" rule complete, you need to specify the order in which to evaluate which monsters are in LOS. Otherwise, there's no formal algorithm you can use to uniquely determine which monsters are in LOS.

Under current Descent rules, that shouldn't be much of a problem; I don't immediately see any way to trap an arbitrary-order recursive algorithm into an infinite loop. But that's just happenstance; if you created new shapes of monsters, or other game elements that somehow interact with line-of-sight (e.g. mirrors, portals), that rule might start creating paradoxes.

For example:
[c] ...*.
.XX..
..B..
..S..
.XX..
...H.[/c]
Beastman B and skeleton S are sandwiched between some rubble (X). Hero H has access to a magical portal (*) which she can both see and attack through, as if she were standing on that point.

If we start by deciding that the skeleton is not visible, then it does not block LOS, and so the hero can trace LOS through it and hit the beastman with direct fire from her current position. The beastman then blocks LOS from the portal to the skeleton, and our ruling is entirely self-consistent.

However, if we start by deciding that the beastman is not visible, then it does not block LOS from the portal to the skeleton, and so the hero can see and attack the skeleton. The skeleton then blocks LOS to the beastman, and our ruling is once again perfectly self-consistent, yet completely different from the previous ruling.

Thread: Re: New expansion previewed at Gama - Winter/ Ice themed

roberious — 2008-05-08T11:01:10+00:00

I have the brochure and it's called the Tomb of Ice.
"The unexplored, wintery dungeons of the frozen north call out to the heroes of Descent, promising them plenty of great adventures, battles, and rewards to be found in the icy caverns."

Includes . Double-sided indoor/outdoor map tiles expands and supports the Road to Legend
. New hero and Monster figures!

The expansion uses a brand new tranparent "stealth" die.
There are brand new RtL specific elements included.

Roberious

Thread: Re: New expansion previewed at Gama - Winter/ Ice themed

herufeanor — 2008-05-08T06:54:58+00:00

While I expect any new, post-RtL expansions will certainly be designed to work with base Descent, I would be rather shocked if they didn't include everything you needed to translate any new monsters, cards, effects, etc. into RtL.

Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean it will include RtL-specific elements, like new dungeon cards, outdoor encounters or avatars, but that seems likely.

Thread: Re: New expansion previewed at Gama - Winter/ Ice themed

chrisnd — 2008-05-08T06:23:30+00:00

johnweldy wrote:
Any idea how it will interact with Road to Legend? Just more of the same from early expansions, or new campaign options?

I was at GAMA last month. Based on my conversation with one of the guys in the FFG booth, the new expansion will include materials that are compatible with Road to Legend as well as the standard Descent game.

When I asked "So, like new dungeon cards and new outdoor encounter cards," his reply was "yeah, something like that, I suppose."

I think that the guy I was talking to may not have been a member of the Descent "creative team", so I am sure his knowledge of the expansion itself may have been limited. But based on his answer and the way he answered, the probability of including material compatible (and/or specifically designed to work) with the mechanics of RtL seem pretty high.

It is my understanding that they expect to have it before the end of this year - probably Winter 2008 quarter, as the Fall 2008 quarter has already been designated as the release time-frame for the reprinting of "Altar of Despair".

Thread: Re: Issue with Figures out of LOS not blocking LOS

herufeanor — 2008-05-08T05:57:29+00:00

So, the situation you're referring to is like so:

H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 B 0 0 0
0 0 0 B 0 0 A 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 A T

Where H is the hero, B are blocks, As are a two-space monster, and T is a one-space monster. There is a narrow LOS that goes directly through the center point of monster A, but doesn't hit the center of either SQUARE of that monster, so it's not in LOS. This seems pretty messed up right there. Essentially, it means that, for a two-space critter, the LOS actually has to be off-center to hit.

With the new ruling that creatures outside of LOS don't block LOS, now the two-space creature no longer blocks LOS, so monster T becomes visible.

To me, this isn't so much a problem with the new ruling, as another symptom of a problem with the original LOS system. Monster A shouldn't be out of LOS to begin with.

Right now, I favor the new rule, because I'm looking at it in terms of how the rules can be abused. I see lining up the beastmen, as shown in the example diagram above, to keep them all out of LOS, to be a bit of an abuse. It's a mild abuse, but an abuse none-the-less. And it's REALLY easy to setup. Situations arise all the time in dungeons where you can take advantage of that.

However, the situation you just linked to, which specifically requires that you look through a corner at a two-space monster, is going to be a VERY rare situation. From the pictures I've seen of DOOM, it looks like it tends to have larger rooms, making this sort of situation a bit more likely. In Descent, it's going to be such a rare exception that it's hardly worth considering. After all, it requires a very precise arrangement of figures in an 8x4 area, and I can't see any way to achieve this same effect in a smaller area.

If you want to fix BOTH problems with a simple house-rule, say that for multi-space monsters, you just have to hit BETWEEN two of the center points. Essentially, draw a line between each pair of neighboring center points, and if the LOS crosses that line, the monster is in LOS. This is a very small change, which leaves the vast majority of LOS situations the same. It would only affect situations where you have a very narrow LOS, like looking through a corner, toward a multi-space monster.

With this rule, the two-space monster in the above example actually IS visible, like it seems it should be, and the one-space monster behind it is blocked, as it also seems it should be, regardless of whether you use Kevin's ruling.

Thread: Re: Why is Descent with expansion harder on the heroes?

Rygel — 2008-05-08T04:43:45+00:00

I agree that the new treachery deck gives the Overlord the power he needs to put up a good fight against the hero players. This was missing in the base game.

To be more exact, it is the new traps and charms that come in the treachery deck that gives the Overlord more power.

Thread: Re: Why is Descent with expansion harder on the heroes?

Oshio — 2008-05-08T12:52:33+00:00

I'd also like to throw my hat in the ring for treachery. Treachery is a huge plus for the Overlord. Not only does it give you uber powerful cards to fish for, but it also lets you trim the weaker ones out of the deck to make it more concentrated. All of the other things you mention are relatively minor, but treachery is a big one.

I think things are tweaked in the overlords favor at this point, but not too far. I feel it's just enough in his favor to give the heroes a huge sense of satisfaction when they manage to win one.

Thread: Re: Why is Descent with expansion harder on the heroes?

perfalbion — 2008-05-08T12:29:26+00:00

Mishenka wrote:
I've read a number of times now that Descent with WoD and/or AoD expansions makes it nearly impossible for the heroes to win.

I'd say that the conclusion is flawed. WoD and/or AoD make it harder for the heroes, but in the base game the heroes had it too easy. The quests often weren't particularly challenging in the base game until you hit quests 7-9, and even those tended to be squeakers, but biased towards the heroes.

What I'd say is that the expansions put the game into better balanced.

Is it the treachery deck?

#1 reason right here. The ability of the OL to customize the deck is huge, and gets cards that don't get played out in favor of those that can. This increases the OL's options and adds some really nasty cards into the mix.

Is it the additional monsters?

Not really.

Is it the expansion quests that are harder?

Generally, they are.

Is it other stuff (dark glyphs, curses, etc.)?

These sound like they're different from other things, but this is actually the same as "Is it the treachery?" You buy the cards that bring those effects into play (generally) using the same treachery that gets cards.

Thread: Re: Two Guard Order questions

starfax — 2008-05-08T09:39:10+00:00

Thanks for the reply chaps.

Much appreciated.

Thread: Re: Why is Descent with expansion harder on the heroes?

kilrah — 2008-05-08T07:00:49+00:00

All of them except the monsters IMHO. Those are more a matter of variety.
Treachery Deck enhances the OLs power while allowing him to get rid of useless cards.
The quests are quite some harder.
The other stuff isn't all that bad IMHO, besides the green sundered glyphs that are just broken for any quest that has few glyphs to start with (as the expansion quests tend to have).

Thread: Why is Descent with expansion harder on the heroes?

Mishenka — 2008-05-08T05:01:04+00:00

I've read a number of times now that Descent with WoD and/or AoD expansions makes it nearly impossible for the heroes to win. However, I'm a bit confused as to what exactly about those expansions makes it so difficult. So here are my questions:

Which expansion makes it more difficult, or is the combination of both?

Is it the treachery deck?

Is it the additional monsters?

Is it the expansion quests that are harder?

Is it other stuff (dark glyphs, curses, etc.)?

Thanks.

Thread: Re: Issue with Figures out of LOS not blocking LOS

LoneCleric — 2008-05-08T03:01:43+00:00

LoneCleric wrote:
Before posting on this thread, I was hoping to find that "LOS sample sheet" that someone made for Doom. I know it was referred to on these forums at least once, but I can't find that page anymore. Anybody here as a remote idea of what I'm talking about?
Oh, oh, found it!
[url]http://files.boardgamegeek.com/geekfile_view.php?fileid=15988[/url]

You see, if you apply Kevin's ruling at face value, the monster (I don't know their names) at the bottom of the main grid can actually be attacked. That, alone, was enough to make me drop the ruling for good.

Thread: Re: Issue with Figures out of LOS not blocking LOS

LoneCleric — 2008-05-08T01:20:59+00:00

herufeanor wrote:
Now given that ruling, does my initial question make more sense?
Here are my 2 cents.

I've been glad to see this ruling left out of the official FAQ. Because as much as respect Kevin, this is terrible rule.

Before posting on this thread, I was hoping to find that "LOS sample sheet" that someone made for Doom. I know it was referred to on these forums at least once, but I can't find that page anymore. Anybody here as a remote idea of what I'm talking about?

The thing with that diagram was that it showed a completely broken example of the ruling as stated. :shake:

I think that, as nonsensical the examples with the skeleton & beastmen is, it's not that bad. So the figure is in a position where they don't have a single good shot at the monsters. It happens...

Thread: Re: Adding these to the Shop Deck. What do you think?

HashKey64 — 2008-05-07T10:32:14+00:00

Some cards (many thanks to the creator of IAM's Fantasy Card Creator):

(I lowered the cost for the spear's Pierce abilty down to 2 surges. I though it was too meager for a spear to even have less damage potential than a dagger [even thou the spear have the reach ability]. Perhaps the cost would go up now?)

[URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/8995/shopitemwaraxefcenu2.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/8637/shopitemgreatswordfceqm7.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/8945/shopitemspearfcehq4.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

Thread: Re: Issue with Figures out of LOS not blocking LOS

dbuel — 2008-05-07T09:20:41+00:00

herufeanor wrote:
Okay! The FFG forums are finally back up, so I was able to find the ruling. It is indeed in the stick thread, on the 4th post down, here: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/list/168.page

The specific quote is:
Official KevinW ruling from FFG forums wrote:
LOS
A) In the instance where you have a figure blocking the Line of Sight of another figure, is that Figure targetable, no matter the circumstance?

eg
[IMG]http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c384/Syntaks/LoS.jpg[/IMG]
Can the Skeleton hit any of these Beastmen?

A) For purposes of determining LoS for an attack, ignore figures that are not in LoS themselves.

Now given that ruling, does my initial question make more sense?

Yeah. Suppose the rock weren't there. You'd be able to hit Beastman 1 (the left one), obviously. Beastmen 2 and 3 would be blocked by Beastman 1. Beastman 4 would be hittable, because he isn't blocked by Beastman 1 and because the FAQ tells us to not care whether he's blocked by Beastmen 2 or 3.

Now, add the rock. Beastman 1 is no longer in view, but this is just fine. The thing is, Beastman 2 is suddenly visible. Why? Because you're not allowed to say he's blocked by Beastman 1, due to the FAQ. Beastman 3 remains hidden, but now he's hiding behind Beastman 2 instead of Beastman 1. And Beastman 4? He now hides behind Beastman 2, whereas before, he couldn't.

So, this seems weird.

I guess a way to rationalize it is, when the rock is there, Beastman 1 begins hiding behind it -- and so Beastman 2 is no longer able to hide behind him, because of all the crouching. And snarling. Snarling and crouching. And then Beastman 4 suddenly gets smart and hides behind Beastman 2, who is too busy snarling at the crouching Beastman 1 to make Beastman 4 stop crouching.

And don't forget snarling.

Thread: Re: Issue with Figures out of LOS not blocking LOS

herufeanor — 2008-05-07T08:07:34+00:00

Okay! The FFG forums are finally back up, so I was able to find the ruling. It is indeed in the stick thread, on the 4th post down, here: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/list/168.page

The specific quote is:
Official KevinW ruling from FFG forums wrote:
LOS
A) In the instance where you have a figure blocking the Line of Sight of another figure, is that Figure targetable, no matter the circumstance?

eg
[IMG]http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c384/Syntaks/LoS.jpg[/IMG]
Can the Skeleton hit any of these Beastmen?

A) For purposes of determining LoS for an attack, ignore figures that are not in LoS themselves.

Now given that ruling, does my initial question make more sense?

Thread: Re: Adding these to the Shop Deck. What do you think?

herufeanor — 2008-05-07T07:56:31+00:00

HashKey64 wrote:
The Axe (original Axe) has the "1 Surge: +1 Damage" ability. It's powerful and at 100 Gold. Paying 200 Gold for the Greatsword a hero has to skip 100 Gold of other equipment.

Oh, does it? I don't have the game in front of me, so I can't check that, but if that's the case, then that IS very powerful. I didn't think anything in the shop deck had 1 damage for 1 surge.

HashKey64 wrote:
The walking stick is a mystery to me? What kind of wood it is made of? The "stick" seems to be a real "killer". Is it a double handed weapon?

It's precise construction isn't exactly described on the card. :-)

But yes, I think it is a two-handed weapon, which is a very key difference.

Thread: Re: Painting bane spiders

Falke — 2008-05-07T07:50:47+00:00

OK

I don't think it's worth the effort then. Thank you guys.

Thread: Re: Adding these to the Shop Deck. What do you think?

HashKey64 — 2008-05-07T07:44:15+00:00

Of course, I might change that to +1 damage instead of pierce 1. I think it better offsets the lower chance to hit, and better represents how an ax works (it only "pierces armor" by doing general massive damage, which would result in even MORE damage if the armor weren't there).
Very convincing. I will change Pierce 1 to +1 Damage. =)
agree with the surges. 1 surge for 1 damage is a copper level ability.
The Axe (original Axe) has the "1 Surge: +1 Damage" ability. It's powerful and at 100 Gold. Paying 200 Gold for the Greatsword a hero has to skip 100 Gold of other equipment.

The walking stick is a mystery to me? What kind of wood it is made of? The "stick" seems to be a real "killer". Is it a double handed weapon?

Thread: Re: Adding these to the Shop Deck. What do you think?

herufeanor — 2008-05-07T07:17:22+00:00

perfalbion wrote:
The ax is pretty much identical to the sword (I think even on price), so why would anyone buy it instead?

The axe is harder to hit with, due to the 1 surge to hit, but it also provides pierce, which the sword does not. It's an interesting trade-off.

Of course, I might change that to +1 damage instead of pierce 1. I think it better offsets the lower chance to hit, and better represents how an ax works (it only "pierces armor" by doing general massive damage, which would result in even MORE damage if the armor weren't there).

As a side note, I'd use a different image for the ax. The sort of ax you seem to be trying to model seems to be more like the big, heavy, double-headed dwarven axes you often see in fantasy contexts, not the smaller, single-headed ax you have pictured.

perfalbion wrote:
The greatsword is interesting, but with the limited carry-over damage you'll get, it's only going to be really useful against skeletons or bane spiders. And 1 surge for 1 damage is a copper level ability. Be better to do 2 for 1 and 3 for 2, but even that's getting into copper level damage.

I agree with the surges. 1 surge for 1 damage is a copper level ability. I would only consider putting that on a shop weapon if it had a significant drawback to balance it out, like the ax's 1 surge to hit thing.

The carry-over damage won't typically be a big deal, but I think that's the idea. It'll get you an extra point or two of damage on another monster every once in a while, but will rarely result in a second kill. That seems like an appropriate level of power for a shop weapon, to me.

perfalbion wrote:
The spear is very similar to the walking stick. Without going into the box, I think the walking stick is 2 surges for one damage.

Hmm. That is a good point. If they have the same dice, the same Reach ability, but the walking stick has 2 surges for 1 damage, and the spear has 3 surges for 1 pierce, then the walking stick is unquestionably better.

Thread: Re: Adding these to the Shop Deck. What do you think?

perfalbion — 2008-05-07T07:04:50+00:00

I know, I'm impossible to please. :)

Those are more balanced, but I doubt they'd ever get purchased.

The ax is pretty much identical to the sword (I think even on price), so why would anyone buy it instead?

The greatsword is interesting, but with the limited carry-over damage you'll get, it's only going to be really useful against skeletons or bane spiders. And 1 surge for 1 damage is a copper level ability. Be better to do 2 for 1 and 3 for 2, but even that's getting into copper level damage.

The spear is very similar to the walking stick. Without going into the box, I think the walking stick is 2 surges for one damage.

They'll add variety, but there's already a lot in the market deck. So again - will they ever be purchased? Outside of the greatsword, I doubt it. And that may be overpowered.

Thread: Re: Adding these to the Shop Deck. What do you think?

HashKey64 — 2008-05-07T06:31:07+00:00

A new take on the weapons:

Same as before. Is it really too weak? I think it is better than the original sword for a skilled user:

WARAXE
Pierce 1
1 Surge: To Hit
2 Surges: +1 Damage
Off-hand bonus: Pierce 1
75 Gold
One Hand
Red + Green Die

Tried to remove some power but keep it interesting:

GREATSWORD
1 Surge: +1 Damage
Carry over overkill (unspent) damage to an additional target
200 Gold
Double Hand
Red + Green Die

I don't have the stats for the walking stick so I don't know if this is to similar:

SPEAR
Reach
3 Surges: Pierce 1
Does not receive bonuses from off-hand items
50 Gold
One Hand
Red + Yellow Die

Thread: Re: Adding these to the Shop Deck. What do you think?

HashKey64 — 2008-05-07T05:04:02+00:00

I know that adding new cards with new abilities will shift power over to the hero side of the game. New options will find new use. The trick is to make new abilities rather weak, perhaps initially percepted as weaker than the original cards but with som hidden potential. That would be the perfect addition.

I have no probem adding a litte more power to the heroes. I agree that the greatsword must be modified some more to make it only slightly more powerful than the axe (the standard axe).

Thread: Re: Adding these to the Shop Deck. What do you think?

HashKey64 — 2008-05-07T04:31:18+00:00

Ok, from a total paintshop newbie. Some images to put on cards:

[URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/678/cardartgreatswordoq6.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/8995/cardartspearrc0.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/3782/cardartwaraxeei1.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

Thread: Re: New expansion previewed at Gama - Winter/ Ice themed

johnweldy — 2008-05-07T02:03:22+00:00

Any idea how it will interact with Road to Legend? Just more of the same from early expansions, or new campaign options?

Thread: Re: New expansion previewed at Gama - Winter/ Ice themed

bleached_lizard — 2008-05-07T01:19:09+00:00

Anyone have a scan of the brochure?

Thread: Re: game length

Fluxx — 2008-05-07T10:49:14+00:00

One Problem is that after you get any expansion
a) the dungeons become much longer
b) the OL becomes significant stronger so that the heroes have to play very carefully just to have a chance to win if you don't make your moves chesslike the OL will have an easy go. (Sometimes it is important if an hero stands one space more to the left or the right because it can make the difference between getting one hero killed or not...)

Our longest game so far had been the dragon-quest from WoD - 13h !!!

Thread: Re: game length

Zimeon — 2008-05-07T09:19:11+00:00

Hm? Master Beastmen causes other monsters to roll more power dice? Don't have the rules here, but that's not what I remember… didn't they just cause +1 damage and +1 range?

Thread: Re: New expansion previewed at Gama - Winter/ Ice themed

MWAlbion — 2008-05-07T02:20:23+00:00

A post over at FFG foruns called it ''Caverns of Ice''

Thread: Re: Adding these to the Shop Deck. What do you think?

perfalbion — 2008-05-07T02:10:21+00:00

I'd have to say that the only one of these that I think "works" is the spear. The waraxe isn't good enough, the great sword is too much.

And it's worth noting that the spear is pretty much the Walking Stick that showed up in WoD. Red + Yellow + Reach.

The problem you'll have with tweaking the market deck is that it's too easy to give just a hint too much or too little and either not add something useful or add something that is effectively a copper treasure. The deck is actually pretty well balanced (particularly when you add the expansions and their additions to the market deck) and tough to improve upon.

Thread: Re: Adding these to the Shop Deck. What do you think?

herufeanor — 2008-05-06T11:21:05+00:00

perfalbion wrote:
And 3 surges to affect a second target is very, very cheap. Be better to give it reach or 3 surges to make one additional attack/turn. The latter would at least involve a 1/6 chance of missing. Still awfully powerful, though. Particularly with the one surge for one damage. I don't believe there are any market cards that provide that at all, so even at 200 gold, it's the equivalent of a copper melee treasure there, and they cost 500.

Granting an extra attack, from scratch, for 3 surges, would actually be worse, because then you'd have the opportunity to roll 3 MORE surges, and get a third attack. With 3 surges for an extra target, it will be virtually impossible to ever get more then 2 targets. By the time 6 total surges is feasible, you'll be long past using shop weapons.

However, I agree that 1 surge for 1 damage is a bit much. In fact, with the extra target option, I'd probably remove the extra damage option entirely.

Thread: Re: game length

ced1106 — 2008-05-06T10:58:19+00:00

I've noticed that when the OL spawns, it's pretty much equivalent to filling new room full of monsters, and you can spawn pretty often. If you have the DOOM power, your monsters can roll more power dice, meaning the OL will also harvest more Threat tokens from the surges. If you have a Master Beastman, your monsters will also roll more power dice. In Scenario two, I had a Master Beastman and DOOM giving the Giant more dice to roll. Plus I had regular Beastmen as meatshields. Hee hee.

aka. Washu! ^O^

Thread: Re: New expansion previewed at Gama - Winter/ Ice themed

Almalik — 2008-05-06T10:36:36+00:00

Yay! And the waiting begins anew :D

Thread: Re: game length

Sturmkraehe — 2008-05-06T10:15:39+00:00

For us it was the damned appraisal card. My party was pretty quick until one player gained the ability to draw two treasures a turn and had to choose which to discard. This created an instant vapor lock that would allow the OL to get up, cook a pizza, use the facilities and still come back with time to thoroughly inspect his nailbeds before we could move on.

Where's my egg timer!?!