Game: Descent: The Road to Legend

Thread: Re: Universal Head Player Aid Project

RDewsbery — 2008-05-09T03:04:54+00:00

Excellent news. I tried a game of RtL the other night - we had some reference sheets for it, but they weren't nearly as useable as the usual UH sheets. We tried using UH's original sheets, but that got a bit tricky, and I kept having to go back to the RtL rulebook.

Gosh, it's not the world's best rulebook, is it? There's as much info missed out as there is included, IMO.

Thread: Lieutenants stopping party for good

Caedes — 2008-05-09T02:45:55+00:00

We don't know if there's anything we've played wrong, but the following situation has appeared in our first campaign and is going to break the game apart!

Since the third dungeon, I, the Demon Prince, upgraded my "beast" category to Silver, and decided to send Lady Eliza to harass the heroes while Sir Alric and Lord Merrick Farrow continued razing cities and founding Temples (we were playin "ascension" plot).

In the first encounter against Lady Eliza, the heroes where mercilessly butchered. Only one managed to flee. It seemed nearly impossible for the heroes to defeat her. They've have good copper weapons and equipment, and each had traind 1 black die on his most important trait, so they weren't helpless at all. In fact, until that last dungeon, the heroes had gathered more conquest than the overlord.

The thing I'm trying to say is...

is it normal that an encounter with a lieutenant being so difficult?

If the Overlord attacks the party on the step 3 of the week turn (overlord actions) and slaughter them, does this means that the party misses his turn entirely?

What keeps the overlord from taking Tamalir down if he sends there all his lieutenants at this point of the campaing?

Thread: Definitive FAQ: Multiple Lts Laying Siege

zollom04 — 2008-05-09T01:53:13+00:00

I do realize this question has been asked and answered in threads on FFGs message board, but I'm not sure if I swallow their interpretation of the written rules. It states "if a lieutenant is laying seige", it states nothing about multiple LTs. How can you be so sure that multiple LTs place multiple tokens? Doesn't that make the razing of cities a bit to fast? Virtually, if an OL has two-three LTs in one city it can be razed in three weeks (including the minus one city defense card in play and a lucky roll.) Does it give the heroes enough time to rescue the city? and go to secret training, and search dungeons. A Lt caravan is way too powerful, IMO, for the heroes to effectively stop. An OL can group his lieutenants, move around the board as a single group, siege and potentially raze a city in three weeks, and move on. It's obviously difficult to break up a lieutenant caravan. The OL can continue to remain and siege the town week after week with the Heroes virtually able to do very little to stop him. The heroes move at a snails pace; sitting and waiting till the next week and the next Lt(that's even if they get lucky enough to force a lieutenant to flee.) All the heroes can do is attack the lieutenants and hope to force one to flee, all the while using up health and potions, not being able to enter the town to recoup (there are threads that argue about heroes entrance into a town that is being sieged.)
Why wouldn't an OL sit in Tamilir with three lieutenants and countinue to siege the town over and over for weeks on end. The heroes can't do much about it. They can't even enter the town to recoup. But isn't recouping a time waster while the OL lays siege? If the OL is attcking Tamilir with three LTs the game could "potentially" be over in three weeks (obviously with a lucky roll but I've seen it happen.)

Here is another question for thought.
What happens to the siege token(s) of a lieutenant who is in a lieutenant caravan that the heroes make flee? Should we remove the
token(s) laid down by this lieutenant? Wouldn't this only be fair to the heroes? Or, is this a bonus to the OL and he keeps all siege tokens?

We need a definite answer to whether or not multiple LTs can speed up the siege process with laying multiple siege tokens. And not peoples interpretation of reading the rules.

Thread: The Beastman Lord Tries to Take OVer the World: Sessions 6 & 7

Oboewan — 2008-05-09T01:24:15+00:00

The Beastman Lord Tries to Take OVer the World: Session 6
Recap:
Beastman Lord with Obsidian Shackles: Humanoid Monsters are Silver
3 Farrows are in play

Heroes:
Trenloe the Strong
One Fist
Mad Carthos
Grey Kerr

The OL gains notoriety, Kratz the Plague comes out and moves to Riverwatch. Fresh from his "defeat" Alric moves to Vynelvale where Marrick continues his siege. Eliza moves to Tamalir. The Party heads to the Caverns of Thuul but are waylaid but some sneaky nagas in the Buttefly Marshes. The heroes are ambushed but they all managed to wake up in time to kill two regular nagas. The master naga and the Ogre manage to do some damage but then a Beastman War Party appears and manages to swipe at Mad Carthos but it takes all 4 of them plus the Naga to kill him. The OL screws up and sends the beastmen against Grey Ker and manages to kill him but end up blowing themselves up due to DR.
Trenloe and One Fist wail on the Naga and kill it. The lone beastman comes up and can’t get past One Fist’s armor and One Fist advances and then runs away and dies.

The Heroes continue on to the Caverns of Thuul and are spun Down the Drain . The heroes do quite nicely and knockback a beastman to a place it can’t get out of. They take out the master beastman and the other 2 without problems.. The Beastman Lord is not having a good day. The heroes glide down the waterslide perfectly and all come out a bit wet but manage to kill everything but Shellis who isn’t looking to healthy and doesn’t managed to roll his undying. Just one master skeleton left. The skeleton manages to do some damage to Ker but then can’t get the range to finish him off. However the Heroes can't seem to stop the pile of bones from reforming and it comes back for more. They finally stilled the bones after 5 kills.

OL: 7 H: 11

Session 7:
Caverns of Thuul Lvl 2: Web of Lives

Full of confidence after their success on the previous level, the heroes find themselves facing a bunch of bane spiders, a pair of skeletons and a pair of ferrox. Grey Ker runs up and takes out a spider. Mad Carthos tries to take out some minions with his breath weapon but can only tag a skeleton. Some beastman show up but things don’t go so well for the minions against Trenloe’s armor. Grey Ker is tempting but that damn Divine Retribution…. The heroes take out the master beastman and one of the ferrox and two of the normal spiders. The Queen charges in and shoots at Ker twice ignoring his DR but doesn’t quite finish him of but gets him webbed and poisoned. One Fist comes back and tried to take out a beastman and takes him within bleed range so he probably won’t survive to make another attack. Mad Carthos exerts to do battle and breathes on the faraway spider and another beastman and then carries it over to the last beastman and ferrox… killing everything but the ferrox. Some dark priests show up and manage to kill Grey Ker but not much else. The heroes start to wail on the Queen who slowly is dying… They manage to kill her off and rescue all of the villagers… But the OL manages to get out both Doom and Hordes of Things, the heroes shop and get the Belt of Strength for One Fist and Plate Mail for Trenloe. One the way out Grey Ker writes "Heroes Rule Beastmen Drool" on the wall and One Fist carves out "Heroes 4 Lyfe" with his hook.
OL 3 H 10

They move on to discover an Alchemists Lab and find themselves facing a master sorcerer, a bunch of beastmen and some skeletons on tables. They move in and kill a skeleton. The OL spawns a pair of Master Ferrox and tries to startle the heroes and manage to do noting but get one beastman killed by a prepared hero. Carthos blasts away and takes out the other skeleton and greviously injures the beastman who is then killed by Trenloe. Then the unthinkable happens.....one of the Ferrox heads towards Trenloe in a rage but is shot by Grey Ker 1 square short of Trenloe and is Webbed! Oh the agony of being forced to listen to the four of them hemming and hawing and just ROTFL. Arggggh!!!!!!!! The beastman comes in pissed an takes out some of Trenloe’s hide but it is naught but a noble effort. The heroes commence to take out another beastman and the sorcerer takes another piece of out Trenloe. The Ferrox gets rid of one web but is still stuck. A Master Troll who'd been skulking around in the back slowly moves in but things are sucking big time for our Beastman Lord. The Troll takes a step toward One Fist who is all alone but is guarded by Grey Ker and his damnable Webbing Weapon and dies before he can make a single attack. Trenloe and Grey Ker managed to take out the leader and he just can’t seem to find the energy to regenerate. The lone Master Ferrox is quivering in the rear as One Fist advances but miraculously doesn’t fall down. He responds with careful aim and manages to leach a few health back from his victim. Still writhing on the floor the Ferrox is chopped to pieces by One Fist's hook and the Heroes have now completely cleared the dungeon level except for those crappy potions!

OL 3 H 5

This was a very pitiful 3 levels for our Beastman Lord. Between critical misses, Master Ferrox stopped in their tracks before ever attacking and just dumb luck, it was insane! Perhaps a beastman spawn could have taken down One Fist but it would have been tight and rather than spend the 15 threat I just waited. It appears that the total CT is balancing out as it should with the Legendary areas.. right?

I’m at 24 Threat going into the final level of the Caverns of Thuul and will hopefully have some fun with our heroes next time as they face their greed.

OL: 89
H: 82
Campaign: 171

Thread: Re: Worried about the final battle...

Icing — 2008-05-09T11:02:53+00:00

mikecl wrote:
Henri you can not upgrade more than one monster class at Copper Campaign level no matter how much CT you have.

Yeah, I actually remembered that right after I posted, but I were too sleepy to restart my computer and correct it. That's what you get for playing boardgames until morning. :D

Well, we will probably be hitting silver after couple of more dungeons if the CTs keep coming at about the same rate so after that I can spend my hard-earned points to upgrade one more type to silver and my beloved humanoids to gold. :sauron:

Note to self: use the CTs you can't use for monster upgrades to buy Shadow Clones and Wraithform. And Crushing Blow. Definitely Crushing Blow.

Thread: Re: Darkness falls: Battles reign, but neither side gains advantage, Session rpt 2

midnightfaerie — 2008-05-09T09:46:11+00:00

*laugh* Lord Kevin, I have received your missive
and am contacting the master with where and when he
would like you placed. Hopefully the message is
not intercepted. I will get back to you with post
haste on our orders. In the meantime, be wary of
friendly commrades who ask your plans! There are
spies everywhere!

Sincerely, Lord Alric

Thread: Re: Why do anything but whack Talamir?

AndersGabrielsson — 2008-05-09T07:10:13+00:00

I agree (to a degree) with Mr. Mathews. The OL is not a GM and shouldn't have to restrain himself to keep the game entertaining. There should be enough balance that they can go all-out and not hold back to keep things from going "too much" against the heroes.

Thread: Re: "Remove Curse" too cheap?

AndersGabrielsson — 2008-05-09T07:07:02+00:00

dbuel wrote:
OK, well, if you spend those 500 coins, then if I'm the OL, I can simply not use cursed items. And you've wasted 500 coins. There are plenty of other things I can do with the treachery points I've already spent. Remember, I get to decide all over again how to build my OL deck every dungeon. You, -500 coins; me, minus nothing.

If as the OL I wait and wait to use cursed items, then you might not spend the 500 coins. Which means the first time I use a cursed item, it's going to be amazing. After that, you'll probably buy Remove Curse, in which case I stop using cursed items and use something else again. This is even worse for you: Now you're -500 coins and minus having been nailed by my first use of cursed items; and I'm still minus nothing.

Strictly speaking you're down (or up) the relative effectiveness of Dark Curse compared to what other card you could have put in your deck and what else you could have used the threat for. However, I think that comes out a plus on your side, so the situation is even better.

In RtL, I think the biggest value of Dark Curse is to deny the heroes a key item - it can be a specific item they could make great use of, or just a normal item that would be very useful right then. In the latter role, it's very useful in combination with cards that destroy items and those frosty Deep Elves. First break someone's weapon, then when they happen to get a new one from a chest, deny them that as well.

Thread: Re: limiting # of attacks

AndersGabrielsson — 2008-05-09T06:58:40+00:00

herufeanor wrote:
As to using Cleave for infinite attacks, that's actually much more limited, not just due to the melee range (and thus the need for telekinesis), but also due to the fact that you can only get another attack if the last attack was a killing blow. As soon as you miss, or fail to kill your target, the string of attacks ends. Assuming you can one-hit-kill everything, you'll still average only 5 attacks before you get a miss.

The average will actually be lower than five; about four, I think. The probability of getting five attacks or more is just over 40%.

Thread: Re: limiting # of attacks

AndersGabrielsson — 2008-05-09T06:50:33+00:00

herufeanor wrote:
It's also been said that the power lies with Power Gauntlets, as the only inexhaustible source of fatigue.

As I see it, neither of them are a problem without the other. See, Rapid Fire doesn't actually allow infinite attacks UNLESS you have an inexhaustible source of fatigue. Also, Power Gauntlets is not an inexhaustible source of fatigue UNLESS you have infinite attacks. Neither of these is a significant problem, unless you have the other.

This is true; however, I don't think the problem is a theoritical infinite number of attacks, but a practical number in the double digits - which can be achieved with Rapid Fire even without Gauntlets of Power. (Starting fatigue 4 or 5 + secret master training + fatigue potion.)

I maintain that the problem lies with Rapid Fire. Limiting the number of extra attacks it can give is the easiest fix, and will also bring it more in line with the other cards that give extra attacks.

Thread: Re: limiting # of attacks

Verpi — 2008-05-09T06:27:09+00:00

You can always use dark charm and give the rest of the party a taste of there own medicine, especially if the party is wounded. Also the OL can throw more traps and events at the party, while going light on the monsters.

Verpi

Thread: Re: Worried about the final battle...

mikecl — 2008-05-09T04:35:23+00:00

Henri you can not upgrade more than one monster class at Copper Campaign level no matter how much CT you have.

Thread: Re: limiting # of attacks

mikecl — 2008-05-09T04:25:05+00:00

As the poster who originally raised this issue on FFG, I have to agree with herufeanor on this.

As an earlier post also mentioned, I recommended that fatigue gained from Power Gauntlets not be spend in the turn in which it's acquired. But as herufeanor pointed out in practise the combo has so far not proved to be as bad as I feared.

Instead Silhouette is largely using the excess surges for the extra damage (after punching through the beast's armour) rather than to roll again. That way she doesn' risk roling a miss or a having her second shot absorbed by the armour. But on many occasions she gets four attacks per turn using this combo to deadly effect.

I'm letting my group play it out without house ruling the rule change I just suggested and instead intend to remove the Power Gauntlets with Crushing Blow. (Eight more treach to go!)

I resent a little having to spend XP to get green treach when the Beastman Lord really wants red treachery but what's an OL to do?!

Thread: Re: Worried about the final battle...

Icing — 2008-05-09T02:48:08+00:00

Thank you all for your comments, just finished our next dungeon (the time is 6 AM local time here in Finland, two of our heroes went to sleep over an hour before the end of the last dungeon floor because they had work in the morning :D) and I have to say I am fairly secure with my position right now!

I have one city under siege, and the siege will soon be joined by another one of my trusted underlings (or then I will siege another city with him to make the heroes make a choice between them, but that would take extra week for him to travel to). I am also about 25 CT ahead of the heroes, having decimated them in the aforementioned dungeon, and I'm actually a bit worried I'll sweep the floor with them since with all my points I could upgrade two of my monster classes in the coming two weeks it's probably going to take them to recover... Just hope they don't get to frustrated. ;)

Thread: Re: "Remove Curse" too cheap?

mikecl — 2008-05-09T02:45:26+00:00

herufeanor wrote:
mikecl wrote:
I'm not allowing my guys to suicide either. Why? Beacause this is a game about heroes...and there's nothing heroic about killing yourself....board game notwithstanding.

A thousand years of Japanese culture would disagree with you there. :-)

Yes but we're not playing Song of the Samurai. We're playing Descent.

herufeanor wrote:
Also, if you want to think about it thematically, this is a world with the most severe sort of revolving door afterlife. When people die, they don't stay dead. They come back to life, within moments, in their home temple. So, in this world, the whole concept of "death" and "suicide" clearly have completely different meanings. Killing yourself can be seen as a sound strategic move, WITHIN THE THEME, not just from the perspective of the board game players.

Yeah well I disagree. I see rebirth as a necessary evil to make an epic Fantasy Adventure game work as a board game. And I'm not convinced that the rules actually allow suicide anyway.

Sorry but but my heroes won't drink the Kool Aid Jim.

Thread: Re: "Remove Curse" too cheap?

dbuel — 2008-05-08T11:27:54+00:00

bleached_lizard wrote:
dbuel wrote:
bleached_lizard wrote:
I would still argue that Remove Curse is too cheap as-is. Is 500 coins really something a hero would ever think twice about spending to deny the OL conquest?

OK, so, do you want an answer that applies to the real game as-is, or are you talking about your own house rules here?

With that question I was talking about the original game as-is, though I'd like to hear your opinions on both. :)

OK, well, if you spend those 500 coins, then if I'm the OL, I can simply not use cursed items. And you've wasted 500 coins. There are plenty of other things I can do with the treachery points I've already spent. Remember, I get to decide all over again how to build my OL deck every dungeon. You, -500 coins; me, minus nothing.

If as the OL I wait and wait to use cursed items, then you might not spend the 500 coins. Which means the first time I use a cursed item, it's going to be amazing. After that, you'll probably buy Remove Curse, in which case I stop using cursed items and use something else again. This is even worse for you: Now you're -500 coins and minus having been nailed by my first use of cursed items; and I'm still minus nothing.

So no, I don't think it's too cheap. It's so cheap that I as the OL can't simply use cursed items all the time, but that's good. That would wreck the game anyway.

However, if you're playing that the OL doesn't get to choose how to spend his treachery, then, yeah, the 500-coin price point may mean that the OL is screwed when he randomly draws the cursed item treachery card. I don't know what you do about that.

Thread: Re: "Remove Curse" too cheap?

herufeanor — 2008-05-08T11:18:22+00:00

mikecl wrote:
I'm not allowing my guys to suicide either. Why? Beacause this is a game about heroes...and there's nothing heroic about killing yourself....board game notwithstanding.

A thousand years of Japanese culture would disagree with you there. :-)

Also, if you want to think about it thematically, this is a world with the most severe sort of revolving door afterlife. When people die, they don't stay dead. They come back to life, within moments, in their home temple. So, in this world, the whole concept of "death" and "suicide" clearly have completely different meanings. Killing yourself can be seen as a sound strategic move, WITHIN THE THEME, not just from the perspective of the board game players.

Thread: Re: "Remove Curse" too cheap?

MrSkeletor — 2008-05-08T11:17:57+00:00

mikecl wrote:
I'm not allowing my guys to suicide either. Why? Beacause this is a game about heroes...and there's nothing heroic about killing yourself....

You sure about that?
Heroic Suicide is probably the most common cause of death in fantasy fiction.

Thread: Re: Universal Head - Only you can save us now!

UniversalHead — 2008-05-08T11:16:55+00:00

Yep - I finished the rules summary, revised traps and obstacles, and revised special abilities last night. Just the revised lingering effects and the RtL specific reference tables to go. It's a big job but I've been doing some every night.

Thread: Re: Universal Head Player Aid Project

UniversalHead — 2008-05-08T11:16:29+00:00

Thread: Re: "Remove Curse" too cheap?

mikecl — 2008-05-08T11:07:13+00:00

I'm not allowing my guys to suicide either. Why? Because this is a game about heroes...and there's nothing heroic about killing yourself....board game notwithstanding.

It goes against the grain. I agree with Nathan about the heroes being prepared for the final phase and bringing enough potions and damage absorption to get the job done.

Thread: Re: Worried about the final battle...

The_Immortal — 2008-05-08T10:05:09+00:00

Henri,
I would absolutely NOT start buying Avatar upgrades early, or in most cases, possibly at all, especially with the Beastman Lord. Buying Monster upgrades and Treachery are investments that will earn you more CT in the long run, and will therefore let you purchase the Avatar upgrades later if they become necessary. The one exception to this is the Shadow Clones upgrade, which as Oboewan points out, is incredibly bad to lose if the Heroes draw that silly Rumor that takes it away. Without that one, you are simply dead. I'd almost consider using my starting XP on it next time I play the Beastman Lord, just because it is so important.

But otherwise, keep in mind that BECAUSE of Shadow Clones, the Beastman Lord benefits THREE TIMES as much from Hero kills during his Overlord Keep than other Avatars. Therefore, you want to focus on making the Keep as tough as possible through monster upgrades and Treachery, and buffing up your Avatar that way. If, say, you can earn 40 CT in your Keep (which I have come close to in a regular 3-level Dungeon, let alone a 5-level Keep), you have effectively boosted your Avatar's HP by 240. THAT ought to give the Heroes something to chew on.

Thread: Re: limiting # of attacks

herufeanor — 2008-05-08T09:52:26+00:00

There was an alternate version proposed whereby a fatigue potion, unlike other fatigue sources, went straight into your main pile, thus making fatigue potions the ONLY way to get fatigue back during your turn.

I don't see how it breaks the Gauntlets or Vampiric Blood. The fact that you can't spend the fatigue you gain from them until next turn hardly makes them useless. In fact, I would contend that they're only slightly less useful. Basically, they allow you keep your fatigue up without having to put down a rest order, or waste a valuable fatigue potion.

My problem with schemes like only spending up to your maximum fatigue, or twice your fatigue, is the issue of keeping track of your expenditure. The nice thing about only allowing you to spend what you start with is that it's easy to keep track of, just by maintaining a separate pile.

The only real problem I have with this, again, is that it's a profound change that I don't believe is really necessary. I think there is only one specific case where fatigue is "broken", and that can be fixed by a much simpler nerf on the Gauntlets of Power.

As to using Cleave for infinite attacks, that's actually much more limited, not just due to the melee range (and thus the need for telekinesis), but also due to the fact that you can only get another attack if the last attack was a killing blow. As soon as you miss, or fail to kill your target, the string of attacks ends. Assuming you can one-hit-kill everything, you'll still average only 5 attacks before you get a miss. Plus, the fatigue expenditure to telekinesis everything into melee range would be immense, so you're really not going to be able to power that long a string of attacks.

So, I hold to my assertion that Rapid Fire and Gauntlets of Power is really the only potentially broken fatigue combo.

Thread: Re: limiting # of attacks

JSC_gamergeek — 2008-05-08T09:35:13+00:00

I think I read that thread too (...it is Fatigue that is broken), and I agree that these two posts are pretty much the same topic.

I didn't like the rule capping Fatigue expenditure to what you have at the start of your turn because of a few reasons. The primary of these is that it makes Fatigue potions less thematic. Heroes would get no immediate benefit from them (start at 0, chug a potion, still can't spend any). In most games with fantasy settings, potions and the like have an immediate yet fleeting effect. Not allowing for that instant power boost from consuming the resource means that they are tactically too similar to a Rest order. This may be fine for some, I just don't like the way it plays out in my head. This limitation also breaks the Gauntlets for people not trying to get infinite attacks, as well as Vampiric Blood.

How about a house rule limiting the Fatigue you can spend in a round to twice your max rather than what you started with at the beginning of the turn? That way, if you wanted to, you could still pull the classic Runner strategy from JitD: Run to move double your speed, spend all Fatigue to move further, drinking a potion to refill on the last point, and continue moving with replenished Fatigue until empty. A limit on fatigue expenditure would still limit the number of extra attacks, but only in the most far fetched situations such as with the Gauntlets. Alternately, limit the fatigue expenditure to a hero's max Fatigue, unless he drinks a potion, then extend the limit to double his max (after all, most hero's don't regen fatigue other than through potions and Rests).

What other combos are there out there that are considered game breaking other than Rapid Fire and the Gauntlets? Is it really just Rapid Fire that is game breaking here? How would you get more than 6 attacks without it?

The only combos I can think of that comes close is Cleave with Telekinesis (surround yourself with enemys then Cleave them all!), and that would only really work with Brawler or the Gauntlets to ensure kills on each of the targets. Maybe you'd need both, and Vampiric Blood to boot. Still, this tactic is really only about as good as Vampiric Blood and a Rune with Blast or Breath. As I see it though, these combos are awesome but hardly game breaking.

Thread: Re: Darkness falls: Battles reign, but neither side gains advantage, Session rpt 2

kdevine — 2008-05-08T08:43:33+00:00

Dear Lord Alric,

I would gladly join you in battle, but I know not when and where? If you could reveal your exact location I could send my troops to capt..., I mean join forces with you :)

Sincerely,
The Lord High Master Kevin of Devine

Thread: Re: Why do anything but whack Talamir?

EventHorizon — 2008-05-08T08:00:46+00:00

Corphus wrote:
unfaegne_eorl wrote:
It made us wonder why the OL should do anything other than siege Talamir for the win?

Rules-wise and general strategy-wise, I'd agree with you. However, no villain in their right mind would go for such a mundane and straightforward plan! It's something a normal Beastman could come up with! Go on, ask one of your minions.

Where's the elegance? The subtlety? The arrogance that comes from your obvious superiority to all living beings? "A professional villain goes for the most convoluted win possible" is in the Overlord's Handbook, right before "nobody will take you seriously if your hideout is called 'Applewood Forest'."

Never forget that the heroes are nothing without the trials and suffering the Overlord put them through! YOU are the reason they travel the countryside. YOU create the battles that forge them into worthy adversaries. YOU are their entire reason for existing. And when the time is right, you remove the last thread of hope that you have allowed them to carry for so long.

So when the campaign is at Bronze level, you have the whole Farrow family in play and you're considering running them all over to Tamalir, ask yourself this:

"What would Dr. Doom do?"
This goes against the line of thinking that this is a game where both sides are trying their hardest to win. Frankly, I think that the best bet for the OL is to upgrade the monsters, buy some treachery, max out on Lts and then wander a bit until it gets closer to the Silver level. Save up the CTs so that you can immediately bump another monster level once Silver hits, have Lts in position to jump on to Tamalir all at once.

The heroes have a difficult time beating one Lt, much less 3 or 4 in the same turn (whether they attack or the Lt attacks). Thats 2 or 3 turns before you start rolling for the sieges and good luck for the heroes to be able to knock all the new Silver Lts out, especially given the low potion count at Tamalir. I'm not sure there's a better plan for the OL out there. Of course the counter to that is to have the heroes actively hunting the Lts from the beginning, but that's a crap shoot as well.

Thread: Re: limiting # of attacks

herufeanor — 2008-05-08T07:48:23+00:00

It's also been said that the power lies with Power Gauntlets, as the only inexhaustible source of fatigue.

As I see it, neither of them are a problem without the other. See, Rapid Fire doesn't actually allow infinite attacks UNLESS you have an inexhaustible source of fatigue. Also, Power Gauntlets is not an inexhaustible source of fatigue UNLESS you have infinite attacks. Neither of these is a significant problem, unless you have the other.

So, I think if you just nerf one of these items, you're good. Somebody over on FFG suggested that you make Power Gauntlets exhaust when you use it, which strikes me as a much better solution then exhausting Rapid Fire.

Thread: Re: limiting # of attacks

AndersGabrielsson — 2008-05-08T07:08:01+00:00

I have personal experience of Rapid Fire + Gauntlets of Power in vanilla Descent, and it was pretty bad. With three black power dice and a decent bow you'll reduce the effective cost of Rapid Fire by about one fatigue even without Master Archer, meaning you'll be able to make enough attacks to kill most of what you can see. Master Archer just makes it easier at low levels.

Personally I think the problem lies specifically with Rapid Fire, which AFAIK is the only card that allows unlimited attacks. Change that and the problem goes away, I think.

Thread: Re: Worried about the final battle...

Oboewan — 2008-05-08T06:58:43+00:00

Icing wrote:
I'm a Beastman Lord with the Obsidian Shackles plot, so the final battle is eventually coming my way (since I don't think I'll be trying to raze Tamalir).

This is my first game playing the OL in RtL (thought I have always been the OL of the group in JitD), and I'm still learning the ropes. So, my question is, am I rightfully worried about the Final Battle? The Beastman Lord seems very frail, even if I purchase the Shadow Clones upgrade, and I have no idea how powerful heroes can typically (assuming I don't completely screw up) come in the end of an Advanced Campaing. We are still in the first dungeon, but I thought I should think this through before going further, since if I start gearing up for the Final Battle I should start buying upgrades pretty soon instead of constantly getting my monsters to higher levels. On the other hand, I could just as well buy siege engines and try to go for Tamalir if I'm most likely to bite the dirt instantly in the end. :zombie:

Any personal experiences on the subject yet? The Heroes have a pretty balanced group with one tank (Nanok), two archers (Kirga and Laurel) and a mage (the teleportation one whose name I can't remember right now).

I feel your pain Henri as I am worried about the same thing. Just make sure that you get your Shadow Clones and Wraithform before the TWINS rumor hits the table... I was worried BEFORE I lost them.... now.. I just don't see the light at the end of the tunnel. Luckily we get some special encounter boosts for the final battle... but we'll just have to wait and see... we are 50 CT short of Silver and they just entered Caverns of Thuul.

Thread: Re: limiting # of attacks

herufeanor — 2008-05-08T06:50:33+00:00

There was another rule fix proposed which covers this in a more general way, by saying you can never spend more fatigue in your turn then you started with. It's resolved by putting any new fatigue you gain, after your turn starts, in a separate pile off to the side. At the end of your turn, you put that fatigue back in the main pile, so it's available to be spent next turn.

This is not a bad ruling, but again, I'm not sure it's necessary.

Thread: Re: limiting # of attacks

JSC_gamergeek — 2008-05-08T06:42:38+00:00

I have been thinking about this as well and although my group has not seen this yet I came up with what I think may be a fair house rule for the gauntlets:

When using the gaunts in conjunction with any multiple attack ability (such as Cleave, Quick Casting, and Rapid Fire) resolve all extraneous attacks obtained by this ability before the fatigue is replenished to you. This could be considered to fall under the spirit of the abilities, which seems to be that you are launching all these attacks in one motion.

That way a hero with 5 Fatigue and Rapid Fire could use Rapid Fire twice on each attack, replenishing fatigue to full after each 3 shot volley. This would let a character get 6 attacks with a battle, using Rapid Fire and the Gauntlets. The number would not be a hard cap though. After three levels of training Fatigue, you would be able to get 12 attacks from the same battle (you would have 11 Fatigue, so 5 uses of Rapid Fire per base attack in battle). This could be further raised by adding in Knight and Unmovable to effectively get 24 attacks, but I think if your party wants to put all that on you then you probably deserve that many attacks.

What do you think? Balanced enough?

Thread: Re: Threat between dungeons

ironcates — 2008-05-08T06:24:55+00:00

Thanks Gilles, I guess it could go either way. If there was treach in the discard it could get into the draw pile and vice versa. There is the possiblity of tweaking your treach to each dungeon level but I haven't really seen an advantage in that.

I don't think I'll change the way I do it just because I'm running one campaign and I can keep the discard and draw pile separated.

Thread: Re: limiting # of attacks

herufeanor — 2008-05-08T05:27:24+00:00

I agree that this would be a potential solution, but it feels a bit arbitrary to me. There is also some indication that these combos may not be as broken as some people initially assumed.

Rapid Fire + Power Gauntlets + Master Archer being broken (and to the best of my knowledge, that's the only real infinite-attack combo in the game) is largely a matter of theory. It may well be that it doesn't play out as badly as a lot of people say. Without testing, it's rather questionable.

Now, mikecl commented on FFG that his group has Rapid Fire + Power Gauntlets, and it's really not so bad. However, they don't yet have Master Archer, and the ranger in question is using a rather low-damage bow. We'll see how it works out once they upgrade a bit more.

Thread: Re: Worried about the final battle...

herufeanor — 2008-05-08T05:20:30+00:00

Eek. They have Nanok, Laurel and the teleporter, in one group?

Yea, if I were you, in that situation, I'd do my best to make sure the final battle doesn't happen. Which means sieging Tamalir.

I'm currently playing the Sorcerer King in the Obsidian Shackles plot, but I think my avatar is a lot less frail, and my heroes a lot less potent. I'm currently planning to spend the first half of the game (till around 300 total conquest) focusing almost entirely on non-Avatar upgrades, so I can keep the heroes in check as much as possible, and then the second half almost entirely on actual Avatar upgrades, to prepare for the final battle.

Keep in mind, though, that monster upgrades can ALSO help beef up your avatar, because any conquest points gained during the final dungeon translate directly into extra hitpoints for you Avatar. If you repeatedly kick their asses in that dungeon, then it will make you a lot harder to kill at the end.

Thread: Re: Daze

JSC_gamergeek — 2008-05-08T03:57:40+00:00

I agree that Daze should be "power" in RtL, rather than "black" or even a negative boost type effect. Removing one die is the intended effect of Daze.

There are three types of dice, as I see it:

Attack dice: any die with an X on one side, related to the method of the attack (melee/ranged/magic). Red, Blue, and White.
Bonus dice: any die that is inherent to the weapon or method of attack used. Green and Yellow.
Power dice: any die that denotes a skill level or extra effort. Black, Silver, Gold.

In the base game, Daze was worded in a way that prevented it from removing a red, blue or white die from the dice rolled. I believe this was to prevent Daze from being used to remove the attack die, and any chance at a miss (rolling an X). Effectively, this prevents the situation where Daze could have a positive effect, since it is intended to be a negative status.

Yes, this makes Daze powerful in the hands of the hero players. I think this is balanced by not having it on any Gold level treasures, making the ranged attacker choose between Daze and extra damage at higher levels.

Thread: Re: Universal Head Player Aid Project

galonso — 2008-05-08T03:44:55+00:00

Any word on this highly anticipated project?

Thread: limiting # of attacks

halibut5 — 2008-05-08T03:41:20+00:00

hey all

i heard many people talk about broken combos (my group hasn't hit them yet). but i was thinking could this be solved by just limiting the # of attacks each hero can make in a round? if so, what should the limit be? 6?

Thread: Re: Universal Head - Only you can save us now!

RDewsbery — 2008-05-08T03:38:54+00:00

Any news? Using the standard UH Descent play aids for RtL leads to upset and confusion :(

Thread: Worried about the final battle...

Icing — 2008-05-08T03:10:55+00:00

I'm a Beastman Lord with the Obsidian Shackles plot, so the final battle is eventually coming my way (since I don't think I'll be trying to raze Tamalir).

This is my first game playing the OL in RtL (thought I have always been the OL of the group in JitD), and I'm still learning the ropes. So, my question is, am I rightfully worried about the Final Battle? The Beastman Lord seems very frail, even if I purchase the Shadow Clones upgrade, and I have no idea how powerful heroes can typically (assuming I don't completely screw up) come in the end of an Advanced Campaing. We are still in the first dungeon, but I thought I should think this through before going further, since if I start gearing up for the Final Battle I should start buying upgrades pretty soon instead of constantly getting my monsters to higher levels. On the other hand, I could just as well buy siege engines and try to go for Tamalir if I'm most likely to bite the dirt instantly in the end. :zombie:

Any personal experiences on the subject yet? The Heroes have a pretty balanced group with one tank (Nanok), two archers (Kirga and Laurel) and a mage (the teleportation one whose name I can't remember right now).

Thread: Re: Threat between dungeons

LoneCleric — 2008-05-08T01:27:48+00:00

emceekhan wrote:
I don't recall you getting to change your deck if the game "pauses."
"Storing the Game", page 19:
RtoL Rules wrote:
When the next session begins, the players can retrieve the pieces from their boxes and place them where the campaign sheet says they should go. If the heroes were inside a dungeon, the overlord first has the chance to upgrade his Overlord deck using his current treachery. He then shuffles his deck (making sure not to shuffle in his hand) and discards the number of cards indicated on the campaign sheet. This is a relatively fair way of tracking the overlord’s progress through the deck without having to do anything too complex.
Sounds pretty explicit to me that something can be done.

But as I said, I don't think this is a great rule, I'm even suspecting this a misunderstanding/oversight, and I don't plan to take advantage of it anyway...

Thread: Re: Threat between dungeons

ironcates — 2008-05-08T12:40:33+00:00

LoneCleric wrote:

Note, however, that if the game is "paused" between levels, the rules do say that the OL is allowed to "re-treacherize" his deck. I'm assuming that this is to make storage simpler, although I don't like the idea of "punishing" the heroes for pausing the game by allowing the OL to re-tweak his deck... :(

Hmm... I haven't seen that either. And with the ruling on dark glyphs once per dungeon it makes sense that the deck would stay consistent throughout. If you have multiple campaigns going I assume you would have to write down the treachery cards that are left in the deck and discard pile or allow a "re-treacherize" like you describe but I don't think that in a continuing game this would be necessary or in the spirit of the rules.

Thread: Re: Why do anything but whack Talamir?

scooterkdavis — 2008-05-08T08:18:12+00:00

Thread: Re: Threat between dungeons

emceekhan — 2008-05-08T07:20:08+00:00

I'm not sure what rule you are referring to, but I thought you took your deck and put it (with cards that get reshuffled back in) into your OL box, with the treachery you have accumulated. When you start again, you take out the cards, shuffle them, put an amount of cards from the top into the discard equal to the number you recorded, and then you dealt yourself an hand.

I don't recall you getting to change your deck if the game "pauses."

Thread: Re: Additional Encounters

shnar — 2008-05-08T05:18:55+00:00

I could see some OL Upgrades that added 10 extra Encounters that were thematically specific and tougher. Also, an "ambush" ability would be cool. Say for XP, you buy a special "ambush" Encounter. Then whenever the Heroes have an Encounter, the OL could use his special Ambush one regardless of what was rolled.

Oo, maybe something like Rumors but for the OL would be interesting. Say, in a given dungeon, the OL has some other goal than just killing the Heroes. And if he is successful with this goal, he gains the Ambush Encounter card. Say something like the Azaxis summoning dungeon level (can't remember the number). If the demon is successfully summoned, the OL gains the Ambush (or some other special ability).

-shnar

Thread: Re: Threat between dungeons

LoneCleric — 2008-05-08T02:48:03+00:00

emceekhan wrote:
Yes, treachery is only reset between dungeons LOCATIONS, and not dungeon LEVELS. So in a three level dungeon, you keep your treachery pool until the players flee or finish it for good. However, if the heroes flee/go back to the Overland map, the OL resets his treachery for the next dungeon location on the map.
Note, however, that if the game is "paused" between levels, the rules do say that the OL is allowed to "re-treacherize" his deck. I'm assuming that this is to make storage simpler, although I don't like the idea of "punishing" the heroes for pausing the game by allowing the OL to re-tweak his deck... :(

Thread: Re: Not Telekenesis, not Rapid Fire, not Gauntlets of Power... it's fatigue itself that's broken.

emceekhan — 2008-05-08T02:03:11+00:00

EventHorizon wrote:
The heroes just need to know their limits and the consequences of their actions.

That's exactly how it should be. Good heroes know where to go, what to do and when to do it. A great OL knows how to continue to put so many challenges on the board at once that it makes the heroes have to decide what is the greater threat, and hope they guess correctly.

On the note of fatigue:

My players only got to use the combo for two dungeons before we went to silver level. At the end of the dungeon, I crushed the Gauntlets. Beginning of the week we went Silver level, no more draws for Gauntlets. I also got the Web weapon, so that ended that for awhile.

You just have to play the game better as an OL now to stop the combos. There's things you can do - use traps, swarm monsters, focus on the other heroes, etc. - that can play down a killer combo. If your monsters go silver before the heroes get to their "silver" position, they can trump combos.

Thread: Re: Threat between dungeons

emceekhan — 2008-05-08T01:31:46+00:00

Hector131 wrote:
Does that mean that treachery is only reset inbetween dungeons and not levels? I assume it would be if you only reset the deck inbetween dungeons. The OL might want to swap out treachery cards after he/she puts some more points in treachery.

Yes, treachery is only reset between dungeons LOCATIONS, and not dungeon LEVELS. So in a three level dungeon, you keep your treachery pool until the players flee or finish it for good. However, if the heroes flee/go back to the Overland map, the OL resets his treachery for the next dungeon location on the map.

Thread: Re: Daze

emceekhan — 2008-05-08T01:25:44+00:00

LoneCleric wrote:
herufeanor wrote:
The odd thing is, you shouldn't have to "update" it for Road to Legend, since the RtL rulebook reprinted the rules for all the special abilities and lingering effects, including Daze. If there were any intended changes, you would EXPECT them to be changed in the RtL rulebook.
This is exactly why I think that silver & gold dice are unaffected by Daze. Sure, whenever a rule concept moves from JitD to RtoL without any precisions, I'm willing to consider that "power dice == power dice upgrade", more or less.

But as far as I can tell, they took the time to completely revamp all the abilities and lingering effects. If the RtoL book says "black", I'm taking it at face value, until being told otherwise.

Besides, while debating of all this, have you wondered how many times is the Daze ability used in RtoL? Twice. One copper treasure, and a silver one. So their power won't work that well on diamond monsters? Tough luck.

That could very well be. More powerful monsters are more immune to the Daze effect by the literal translation of the card itself (as you pointed out, there is no treasure that deals out Daze in higher levels to fight Diamond level monsters).

I'm going to have to run a scenario with Daze the way it's written and one with Huer's mentioned house ruling. Just to see if it really hurts the game that much (I'm guessing that it's supposed to be just a black die, and not effect gold or silver dice).

Thread: Re: Daze

LoneCleric — 2008-05-08T01:12:35+00:00

herufeanor wrote:
The odd thing is, you shouldn't have to "update" it for Road to Legend, since the RtL rulebook reprinted the rules for all the special abilities and lingering effects, including Daze. If there were any intended changes, you would EXPECT them to be changed in the RtL rulebook.
This is exactly why I think that silver & gold dice are unaffected by Daze. Sure, whenever a rule concept moves from JitD to RtoL without any precisions, I'm willing to consider that "power dice == power dice upgrade", more or less.

But as far as I can tell, they took the time to completely revamp all the abilities and lingering effects. If the RtoL book says "black", I'm taking it at face value, until being told otherwise.

Besides, while debating of all this, have you wondered how many times is the Daze ability used in RtoL? Twice. One copper treasure, and a silver one. So their power won't work that well on diamond monsters? Tough luck.

Thread: Re: Threat between dungeons

Hector131 — 2008-05-08T01:07:13+00:00

Does that mean that treachery is only reset inbetween dungeons and not levels? I assume it would be if you only reset the deck inbetween dungeons. The OL might want to swap out treachery cards after he/she puts some more points in treachery.