Fantasy Flight Games [Forum Descent: Journeys in the Dark Second Edition] - Leading publisher of board, card, and roleplaying games.

2

0

Sorry, Nathrotep. But you are NOT right. You and your group may like 1E better,and that's fine, but it's not a fact that it's better. I don't know why you can't grasp the concept that others may prefer the second edition, just like you and your friends amy like the first edition better. Theyt are not wrong for liking 2E, just like you are not wrong for preferring 1E. To say that one edition is better than the other and that's a fact, is simply not true. You and your gaming group are not the ulttimate authority on what games are good or bad, except for what games are good or bad for you personally,

Harry: "Voldemort has no nose."

Ron: "How does he smell?"

Harry: "Awful."

7

0

Khalbrogo; that's because you so obviously have never played the first edition. You can't have an opinion on something you've never played. Besides, this game was never meant to be played without the treasure cards; they're just putting them in a little at a time to make more money. As far as my gaming group not being the ultimate authority, that is completely irrelevant. It's a fact that they are releasing the cards. It's a fact that they belong in the game. It's a fact that they will make the game better. What are you all going to do? Take out the new treasure cards an not use them because you prefer to play with just your stats? Seriously?

Without Signature

0

nathrotep said:

Khalbrogo; that's because you so obviously have never played the first edition. You can't have an opinion on something you've never played. Besides, this game was never meant to be played without the treasure cards; they're just putting them in a little at a time to make more money. As far as my gaming group not being the ultimate authority, that is completely irrelevant. It's a fact that they are releasing the cards. It's a fact that they belong in the game. It's a fact that they will make the game better. What are you all going to do? Take out the new treasure cards an not use them because you prefer to play with just your stats? Seriously?

Are you serious? I haven't tried eating shit before I don't need to try it to realize I won't like it. Also your counterargument has absolutely nothing even remotely touching the dozens of people I have spoken to in person that all believe 2E is worlds above 1E and basically 99% of the internet.

Also I have no problem with them releasing new cards that's the point of expansions. However you claiming that they intentionally left out cards that would otherwise balance the game or should be in the game in the first place is a huge assumption and I don't see how you cannot differentiate that from fact. I think you need to go back to school and learn what a fact is.

Also you basically didn't address any of my arguments in my orginal post so I will have to assume you have no argument and I am right.

Without Signature

0

Is the OP really this stupid? Or just a troll? Can't decide.

A question nathrotep. Are your gaming group imaginary? It's the only explanation I can come up with for anyone choosing 1ed over 2ed.

Without Signature

2

0

Sorry, duplicate post.

Harry: "Voldemort has no nose."

Ron: "How does he smell?"

Harry: "Awful."

2

0

Now be fair fellas. If Nathrotep likes the first edition better than the second, well, that's his opinion and he's entitled to it. But, what he can't say is that 1E IS better and that's a fact, (or that he's right and that he wins) and on the other hand, neither can any of you say the same thing of the second edition. You may like it better, but that, again, that doesn't mean it IS better.We each like what we like, and no-one can tell us we're wrong for liking it. (or not liking it, whatever)

Harry: "Voldemort has no nose."

Ron: "How does he smell?"

Harry: "Awful."

0

BatHead said:

Now be fair fellas. If Nathrotep likes the first edition better than the second, well, that's his opinion and he's entitled to it. But, what he can't say is that 1E IS better and that's a fact, (or that he's right and that he wins) and on the other hand, neither can any of you say the same thing of the second edition. You may like it better, but that, again, that doesn't mean it IS better.We each like what we like, and no-one can tell us we're wrong for liking it. (or not liking it, whatever)

Yep that's what's rubbing me the wrong way and what I'm counterarguing. On the other hand I am also pointing out the flaws in his subjective arguments as well.

Without Signature

16

2

I own first edition…since 2005 when I saw it on a gamestore shelf. I have always liked it. I bought every expansion and loved the idea of RTL and bought both it and sea of blood when it came out.

I Love 2nd edition more. It's a more polished streamlined and in my opinion competetive game. I want more adventures…longer adventures..more classes and more options in eaxch class….perhaps Prestige classes or multi class rules? The conversion kit and all 1st edition plastic is a must have.

Now I have this to say about the treasure deck from 1st edition. It was a tiered loot system….everything in the silver deck was just a levelled version of something in the copper deck. same thing for the gold deck…no surprises..maybe a few items in each deck that where uniquish but for the most part it was the same stuff with more powerful surge abilities and maybe an added effect.

the way it is handled now is just more streamlined….you have your weapons and most of the development is in the charactars and tyhe class deck as oposed to collecting loot..cause swapping weapons everytime you open a chest is less tactically rewarding in my opinion.

Now I am not saying that it did not have its place and I am not implying that 2nd edition will not benefit from additional weapons and items in the shop decks…it most certainly will. however I think that we will not see the here is a slightly better version of a weapon you already have type of nonsense. why do that when you can just make the charactar better with a weapon he already possessess?

Just my thoughts.

Without Signature

3

0

I really enjoy 2nd edition. I hated 1st edition as the OL was too powerfull. If given a choice between a game of Descent 1E and Dungeon and Dragons. It would be no brainer on how to spend the 4-5 hours.

If you group like 1E. Good for you. 1E killed our gaming group.

Without Signature

0

Just an update. I now own 1st edition (bought from a friend for the figures). However, no one wants to play 1st edition considering I own 2nd edition.

Without Signature

7

0

Okay, so I think I've figured out why almost none of you are seeing what I'm talking about. I think there has been a huge mis-communication. You all are assuming that my group always plays campaign style, while I have been assuming that you all sometimes play solo dungeons. (I know that's a broad statement, so bare with me while I try to explain). My group mostly plays solo dungeons. Why? Because in the first edition they can take anywhere from 4 to 8 hours to complete. If the hero's win at a solo dungeon, they have the OPTION of keeping the same characters, but starting over with basic stats and losing any equipment they have collected. Then, if they want to do another dungeon, they then get a bonus in gold based on how many quests they have completed in a row. They can use this to purchase new equipment, training tokens, random skill cards, and randomly drawn cards from the treasure decks. The OL gets extra power, cards, and threat tokens. If the OL ever wins a game, you have to pick all new characters and start over from scratch. During the game, if you find and activate a 'glyph', you can teleport back to town to heal, sell loot, and purchase things, up to and including training tokens and skill cards, which are more expensive. So, if you wanted to be an idiot jarhead with major skills and just a butter knife, you could sell all your cool equipment and do that. Frankly, I don't see what would be fun about doing it that way, but the option was there. We've never made it past 3 or 4 quests linked in a row when we played it that way, except for when we played the Road to Legends campaign expansion, which is a whole other story. (That took us weeks to complete). The OL is pretty powerful, and increases in strength as they collect threat tokens to use on the fully customizable OL deck. In the second edition, you use your experience points BETWEEN quests and dungeons to purchase skills. This is supposed to be more like a campaign type thing than a stand alone dungeon thing. In the first quest, we had to stop 5 goblins from escaping the map. Really?! That was just goofy compared to what we're used to. In the first dungeon of the first edition, we had to get past or fight 3 hell hounds, 3 skeleton warriors, 8 beast men, a giant spider, 2 giant bats, 2 chimaera's, all their reinforcements, and the main objective of the quest, which was to kill the leader, who was a giant named Narthak. And you can equip treasure cards right when you find them. Do you really want that +2 sword? You bet you did! The OL's main objective was to KILL us. This was a 4 level dungeon, and it was just the tutorial dungeon. In the second edition, you build up your skills AFTER each quest to go on to the next. Well, that's not much fun if you aren't going on to the next quest, is it? No treasure cards to equip along the way sucks, not that you need them in second edition because it's so ridiculously easy to play. Also, the second dungeon in the second edition was even stupider than the first; collect boxes from a field and stop the monsters from getting them? What is this, 'farmville'? That is just completely retarded. So you can see that the second edition would of course seem like it's not as good to me and my group; we're used to fighting hordes of monsters, collecting the treasure, and trying to complete the objective without getting killed! In the second edition, none of us got killed, and the OL quickly got bored once she figured out that all she had to do was completely ignore the hero's, use the big monster to block, and then try to complete the objective with her smaller monsters before we did. To us, that was just lame. These two quests seem to be written for children under 10 years of age when compared to the ones we're used to. In fact, the two versions of this game are like two completely different games. So, we're not normally campaigners; if we wanted to play a D&D type game, we would just play D&D. We're board gamers. We get together and have 5 to 10 hour long gaming sessions, and usually play a different game every time. I guess that this new version just isn't the game for us. And that's too bad, since the first one is one of our favorites. And spare me the rebuttal; I can already hear it coming, "That's stupid! Why doesn't your game group use it's 5 to 10 hours to play a bunch of rounds of this new second edition? The dungeons get better and more challenging, and you can really trick out your hero's abilities, blah, blah, blah…." Well, the answer is because there are not enough treasure and shop cards yet to make this game really interesting for us. I'd rather have a dude with a crazy cool sword and a nice set of armor than just some boring old schmuck with boosted abilities. In about 3 or 4 more expansions, when there are a lot more cards out for it, then maybe we'll try it again, and just skip ahead to the harder dungeons. If you guys like it, more power to ya, but for us, it was just a waste of valuable gaming time. It's probable that some of you still won't 'get' where I'm coming from, since you all seem to love the dumbed down, little kid friendly and more 'streamlined' game play of the new version, but I hope that now you can at least better understand what I've been trying to say all along.

Without Signature

0

nathrotep said:

Okay, so I think I've figured out why almost none of you are seeing what I'm talking about. I think there has been a huge mis-communication. You all are assuming that my group always plays campaign style, while I have been assuming that you all sometimes play solo dungeons. (I know that's a broad statement, so bare with me while I try to explain). My group mostly plays solo dungeons. Why? Because in the first edition they can take anywhere from 4 to 8 hours to complete. If the hero's win at a solo dungeon, they have the OPTION of keeping the same characters, but starting over with basic stats and losing any equipment they have collected. Then, if they want to do another dungeon, they then get a bonus in gold based on how many quests they have completed in a row. They can use this to purchase new equipment, training tokens, random skill cards, and randomly drawn cards from the treasure decks. The OL gets extra power, cards, and threat tokens. If the OL ever wins a game, you have to pick all new characters and start over from scratch. During the game, if you find and activate a 'glyph', you can teleport back to town to heal, sell loot, and purchase things, up to and including training tokens and skill cards, which are more expensive. So, if you wanted to be an idiot jarhead with major skills and just a butter knife, you could sell all your cool equipment and do that. Frankly, I don't see what would be fun about doing it that way, but the option was there. We've never made it past 3 or 4 quests linked in a row when we played it that way, except for when we played the Road to Legends campaign expansion, which is a whole other story. (That took us weeks to complete). The OL is pretty powerful, and increases in strength as they collect threat tokens to use on the fully customizable OL deck. In the second edition, you use your experience points BETWEEN quests and dungeons to purchase skills. This is supposed to be more like a campaign type thing than a stand alone dungeon thing. In the first quest, we had to stop 5 goblins from escaping the map. Really?! That was just goofy compared to what we're used to. In the first dungeon of the first edition, we had to get past or fight 3 hell hounds, 3 skeleton warriors, 8 beast men, a giant spider, 2 giant bats, 2 chimaera's, all their reinforcements, and the main objective of the quest, which was to kill the leader, who was a giant named Narthak. And you can equip treasure cards right when you find them. Do you really want that +2 sword? You bet you did! The OL's main objective was to KILL us. This was a 4 level dungeon, and it was just the tutorial dungeon. In the second edition, you build up your skills AFTER each quest to go on to the next. Well, that's not much fun if you aren't going on to the next quest, is it? No treasure cards to equip along the way sucks, not that you need them in second edition because it's so ridiculously easy to play. Also, the second dungeon in the second edition was even stupider than the first; collect boxes from a field and stop the monsters from getting them? What is this, 'farmville'? That is just completely retarded. So you can see that the second edition would of course seem like it's not as good to me and my group; we're used to fighting hordes of monsters, collecting the treasure, and trying to complete the objective without getting killed! In the second edition, none of us got killed, and the OL quickly got bored once she figured out that all she had to do was completely ignore the hero's, use the big monster to block, and then try to complete the objective with her smaller monsters before we did. To us, that was just lame. These two quests seem to be written for children under 10 years of age when compared to the ones we're used to. In fact, the two versions of this game are like two completely different games. So, we're not normally campaigners; if we wanted to play a D&D type game, we would just play D&D. We're board gamers. We get together and have 5 to 10 hour long gaming sessions, and usually play a different game every time. I guess that this new version just isn't the game for us. And that's too bad, since the first one is one of our favorites. And spare me the rebuttal; I can already hear it coming, "That's stupid! Why doesn't your game group use it's 5 to 10 hours to play a bunch of rounds of this new second edition? The dungeons get better and more challenging, and you can really trick out your hero's abilities, blah, blah, blah…." Well, the answer is because there are not enough treasure and shop cards yet to make this game really interesting for us. I'd rather have a dude with a crazy cool sword and a nice set of armor than just some boring old schmuck with boosted abilities. In about 3 or 4 more expansions, when there are a lot more cards out for it, then maybe we'll try it again, and just skip ahead to the harder dungeons. If you guys like it, more power to ya, but for us, it was just a waste of valuable gaming time. It's probable that some of you still won't 'get' where I'm coming from, since you all seem to love the dumbed down, little kid friendly and more 'streamlined' game play of the new version, but I hope that now you can at least better understand what I've been trying to say all along.

1. Learn to make use of paragraphs.

2. No you are the one that just doesn't get it. 2nd edition isn't a dumbed down little kid friendly version of 1st edition. It's a much more tactical game than that and you still haven't argued anyone's sound and valid counterarguments on why you are just flat wrong in claiming so.

3. I have no problem with you liking 1st edition better than 2nd but you seem to go out of your way to impose it on everyone by saying that 2nd edition is objectively inferior and your only argument has been deconstructed time and again. The progression in 2nd edition stems from more choices given to the player whereas in 1st edition it is almost completely random I don't see how that is any better strategically.

4. Nobody I know in my gaming group including over two dozen people prefer 1st edition to 2nd edition. It isn't just the campaign mode that makes the difference.

5. I don't see the point arguing with you anymore because you don't seem to understand how debate or logic works. You keep repeating the same thing over and over without addressing anyone's counterarguments to your points in all 5 pages of this thread. At this point I am pretty sure you're just trolling.

Without Signature

7

0

I addressed all your arguments. You don't seem to be able to read. I describe, in detail, what I'm trying to say. There are many more choices, as I have listed above. The main one being that there are an abundance of more cards; skill cards included. Also, I point out that these are two entirely seperate games. There are many reviews that agree with me across the internet. It's pointless for me to continue to argue with a 12 year old; have fun playing your game with all your little friends. I hope that this year Santa is extra good to you. Merry Christmas!

Without Signature

7

0

[ADMIN: Edited for content.]

You want me to explain in exact detail how to play Descent first edition and why it is tactically superior and has more choices that descent second edition.

[ADMIN: Forum members are welcome to their opinions, but are not welcome to employ hostile, derogatory, or condescending language.]

Without Signature

2

0

nathrotep said:

I addressed all your arguments. You don't seem to be able to read. I describe, in detail, what I'm trying to say. There are many more choices, as I have listed above. The main one being that there are an abundance of more cards; skill cards included. Also, I point out that these are two entirely seperate games. There are many reviews that agree with me across the internet. It's pointless for me to continue to argue with a 12 year old; have fun playing your game with all your little friends. I hope that this year Santa is extra good to you. Merry Christmas!

Links for said reviews?

Plus, the only one behaving like a child is you.

Harry: "Voldemort has no nose."

Ron: "How does he smell?"

Harry: "Awful."

Register Now
My Points
My Games